Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that he
would like to add to the Agenda the issue of the Department of
Environmental Protection's purchase of the Ray Ranch, under his
County Attorney's Business, noting that they had requested the
County to make a change to the Settlement Agreement that was
entered into between Lake County, the Department of Community
Affairs, and the Ray family.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and
carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to place
said item on the Agenda, under the County Attorney's Report.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that there
was an Addendum to the Agenda and that it had been properly
advertised.

Commr. Good stated that he had an item (Constitution Revision
video)that was scheduled to be addressed under his Commissioner's
Business; however, he would like to move it up on the Agenda and
show the video before the Board started the public hearing portion
of the Agenda.

MINUTES

Regarding the Minutes of May 20, 1997 (Regular Meeting), the
following was requested:

On Page 14, Line 25, clarify the statement that was made, with
regard to the Citizens' Commission for Children.

On Page 15, Line 24, change Welch to Welsh.

On Page 29, Line 11, change was to were.

On Page 33, Line 28, change the word of to and; on Line 29,
change the word was to are and delete the language and the type of
aircraft, at the end of the sentence, on Lines 29 and 30.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and
carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes
of May 20, 1997 (Regular Meeting), as corrected.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and
carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes
of May 20, 1997 (Special Meeting), as presented.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

Regarding the Minutes of May 27, 1997 (Regular Meeting), the
following was requested:

On Page 10, Line 13, change the word infield to infill.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and
carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes
of May 27, 1997 (Regular Meeting), as corrected.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

Regarding the Minutes of June 3, 1997 (Regular Meeting), the
following was requested:

On Page 18, Line 25, insert the fact that Commr. Cadwell will
be serving on the Value Adjustment Board this year, in place of
Commr. Gerber, who will be unable to serve.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and
carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes
of June 3, 1997 (Regular Meeting), as amended.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and
carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the
following requests:

Community Services/Human Services

Request from Community Services for approval and execution of
Elaine H. McInerney Satisfaction of Mortgage.

Bonds - Mobile Home

Request from Growth Management for approval and execution of
a Mobile Home Bond for Michael Mulholland, to place a 30 foot
travel trailer on his property, located on Felkins Road, while
constructing a single family dwelling.

Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases and Agreements/Public Works

Request from Public Works for acceptance of the Final Plat for
Deer Island Club, Second Replat; approval and execution of a
Developer's Agreement, for Construction of Improvements, between
Lake County and the Deer Island Community Development District; and
acceptance of a Letter of Credit, in the amount of $95,510.80.

Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases and Agreements/Public Works

Request from Public Works for acceptance of the Final Plat for
Greater Hills, Phase 8-A; approval and execution of a Developer's
Agreement, for Construction of Improvements, between Lake County
and Greater Construction Corporation; and acceptance of a Letter of
Credit, in the amount of $411,000.00.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER GOOD - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 2

A handout titled Process for Accountability Draft
Recommendation of the Local Government Commission II, as well as a
handout titled Preliminary Position Statements as Prepared by the
Florida Association of Counties (FAC) Constitutional Revision
Committee, were submitted, for the record, as For Your Information
Items, and a video that had been provided to the Board from the
Florida Association of Counties, with regard to the Constitution
Revision Commission, was shown to those present.

It was noted that some of the Commissioners would be attending
the Florida Association of Counties' Annual Meeting, in Ft.
Lauderdale, this week.

It was further noted that meetings, with regard to same, have
tentatively been scheduled for July 30, 1997, in Gainesville, at
the University of Florida Law School Auditorium; in Tampa, on
August 28, 1997, at the Hillsborough County Convention Center; on
September 4, 1997, in Orlando, at the Expo Center; and on September
5, 1997, in Daytona Beach, at the Ocean Center.

Commr. Good invited anyone interested in the Constitution and
what changes are being proposed to it to attend said meetings.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS

PUBLIC HEARINGS

ROAD VACATIONS

PETITION NO. 842 - JOE B. TRAMELL, DEER ISLAND - MT. DORA

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Department of Public
Works, appeared before the Board and explained this request,
stating that it was a request to vacate rights-of-way, lots, and
tracts in Section 36, Township 19, Range 26; Section 31, Township
19, Range 27; Section 1, Township 20, Range 26; and Section 6,
Township 20, Range 27, in the Mt. Dora area - Commissioner District
3. He stated that three years ago a vacation occurred in this
area; however, the applicant is currently in the process of a
replat and this request is to catch anything that was not vacated
at that time.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Greg Beliveau, The Land Planning Group, appeared before
the Board, representing the applicant, stating that his firm has
been involved in this PUD since 1989. He stated that the request
is strictly to vacate the remaining portions of the project and
take care of some areas of conflict that resulted from the actions
of the previous developer. He stated that the applicant has also
brought the lot yield back up to the lot yield that was approved

in the PUD and has adjusted where some of the rights-of-way are
actually located. He stated that they are private rights-of-way
and some of the roads were built where they were not supposed to
be. He stated that this request cleans up all the mistakes that
were made in previous years.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

Mr. Stivender noted that there were no letters of support or
opposition on file; however, the County did receive a telephone
call from an individual who lives in Deer Island, who questioned
the vacation that had occurred previously and noted a concern about
additional lots. He stated that staff was recommending approval of
the request.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the
Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Department of Public
Works, appeared before the Board and explained this request,
stating that it was a request to vacate a right-of-way in Section
20, Township 17, Range 29, Forest Hills area - Commissioner
District 4. He stated that the request involved part of a road
project that was underway that was excess right-of-way and was very
close to a gentleman's trailer. He stated that staff felt it was
excess right-of-way for the County, in light of the road projects
that the County was accomplishing in the area, and that he felt
there was some donation of right-of-way, in conjunction with the
request. He stated that staff was recommending approval.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board,
the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and
carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request
from Public Works for approval of Resolution No. 1997-114 - Road
Vacation Petition No. 843, by Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director,
Department of Public Works, to vacate right-of-way, Section 20,
Township 17, Range 29, Forest Hills area - Commissioner District 4.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. 844 - RONALD DAVIS - LEESBURG

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Department of Public
Works, appeared before the Board and explained this request,
stating that it was a request to vacate lots, tracts, and right-of-way, Silver Lake Estates, Section 14, Township 19, Range 25,
Leesburg area - Commissioner District 3. He stated that this case
involved underlying plats of easements that do not go anywhere,
along the south boundary of Silver Lake Estates, where the plat
already exists, and to vacate any traces of the previous plat.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Ronald Davis, Applicant, appeared before the Board and
answered questions regarding the request.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the
Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and
carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request
from Public Works for approval of Resolution No. 1997-115 - Road
Vacation Petition No. 844, by Ronald Davis, to vacate lots, tracts,
and right-of-way, Silver Lake Estates, Section 14, Township 19,
Range 25, Leesburg area - Commissioner District 3.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. 845 - ALAN AND JOYCE CULVER - MT. PLYMOUTH

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Department of Public
Works, appeared before the Board and explained this request,
stating that it was a request to vacate a road in Mt. Plymouth,
Section "A", Section 28, Township 19, Range 28, Mt. Plymouth area -
Commissioner District 4. He stated that staff's recommendation was
for denial, the reason being that the area in question remains an
area of uncertainty, with regard to a potential special assessment
for the area. He stated that, due to said fact, staff would like
to keep the area open. He stated that, if all the roads are paved
and this road is not necessary, it will be vacated at that time.
He stated that the road in question is probably the least traveled,
if traveled at all, in the area. He suggested that the Board
consider approving a resolution to restrict the area to motorized
vehicular traffic, rather than having the road vacated.

An aerial and plat of the property in question were displayed
and reviewed, at which time Mr. Stivender answered questions
regarding the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Alan Culver, Applicant, appeared before the Board stating
that he and his wife purchased their home, an historical landmark
that was built in 1926, approximately two and one half years ago,
and their purpose in wanting to vacate the road in question was to
keep the property as it has been since the area was developed. He
stated that it is a refuge for gopher tortoises, birds,
woodpeckers, etc. and they want to keep it that way. He stated
that they purchased four lots across the street from them, fronting
Oakmont Avenue, for said purpose. He stated that they feel a road
going through the property will disturb the wildlife refuge,
however, the road vacation will not disturb anyone that lives on
their end of Oakmont Avenue. He answered questions from the Board
regarding the request.

It was noted that the lots on Oakmont Avenue could be
buildable lots; however, the applicants have no intention of
developing them.

Commr. Cadwell questioned whether the applicants would be
interested in closing the road to vehicular traffic, if the Board
did not vacate the road.

Mr. Culver stated that that would be an option.

Commr. Hanson stated that she did not feel the County was
going to have any need for the road, that she did not think this
request was any different than what the Board has approved in the
past, and that she did not think there was any opposition to the
request. She stated that she saw no reason for the Board not to
give the applicants a full vacation, particularly, in view of the
historic value of their home.

Commr. Gerber stated that she hesitated approving this
request, when the County does not know what it will be doing in the
area in the future.

Commr. Hanson stated that she felt, because of the way the
community is developed and, because there are enough other roads
in the area for an outlet, there is probably not going to be a need
for the road to be open.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the
Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Mr. Stivender informed the Board that Florida Power wanted to
reserve an easement, for future use, if the road was vacated.

A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr.
Cadwell to approve Resolution No. 1997-116 - Road Vacation Petition
No. 845, by Alan and Joyce Culver, to vacate a road in Mt.
Plymouth, Section "A", Section 28, Township 19, Range 28, Mt.
Plymouth area - Commissioner District 4, with the stipulation that
Florida Power have the right to reserve a right-of-way easement,
for future use.

Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell questioned whether Florida
Power had power lines on the property, at the present time.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that, if the
County wanted to reserve an easement for utilities, it should
reserve it for all utilities.

Commr. Hanson amended her motion to vacate completely the
portion of Oakmont Avenue in question.

Commr. Cadwell amended his second to the motion.

Commr. Gerber stated that she would not be able to support the
request, noting that she would be more in favor of letting the
property be used for a park. She questioned what difference it
would make, if the use is going to remain the same, for the County
to reserve the right-of-way and see what happens in the future.

Commr. Hanson stated that the road vacation would preserve the
integrity of the neighborhood. She further stated that she did not
see a need for Florida Power to have a right-of-way easement on the
property.

Commr. Good stated that the historical and architectural
significance of the applicant's home puts this request in a
different category than some of the vacation petitions that the
Board has seen in the past. He stated that, with the home being an
historical one, he felt the Board needed to look at the aesthetics
of the parcel and the architectural and landscape design of the
home. He stated, however, that he was not sure having the piece of
right-of-way in question serves the public purpose that the right-of-way needs to serve. He stated that he would support the
request, even though he does not support many road vacation
requests. He then called for a vote on the motion, which was
carried, by a 3-1 vote.

Commr. Gerber voted "No".

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

REZONING

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth
Management, appeared before the Board stating that there was a
requested change to the Rezoning Agenda, noting that the applicant
under Tab 10, Holmar Marina and Campground, had requested a 60 day
postponement.

No one present wished to address the Board regarding the
matter.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and
carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone
Rezoning Case No. CUP635C-4, Holmar Marina and Campground, Tracking
No. 18-97-CUP/AMD, until the Board Meeting of August 26, 1997.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that
the two zoning cases alluded to, as well as other pending tower
applications, were filed after the date that the Board started to
review its new ordinance on tower locations. He stated that there
is a legal doctrine, titled Zoning in Progress, which allows
counties and cities to delay issuing permits, once they have
started changing their ordinance, so that, as soon as the County
identifies that it is going to change an ordinance, staff will not
get a lot of applications trying to come in under the old rules.
He stated that the Board needed to act on the cases, separately,
with regard to the postponements.

It was noted that, when the cases being postponed come through
the process, they will be subject to the new Tower Ordinance. PETITION NO. CUP97/6/4-3 - CUP IN LM - TRIANGLE INDUSTRIAL PARK, GENE SMITH

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson,
appeared before the Board, representing Mr. Gene Smith, Triangle
Industrial Park, and requested that this case be heard this date,
noting that there were a number of people present who wished to
address the Board regarding the case and that she felt there were
distinguishing circumstances involving it. She stated that the two
cases before the Board this date were for replacement towers, not
new towers, therefore, felt they should be heard, noting that the
Tower Ordinance is directed at new towers. She reviewed what
transpired, up to this point in time, with regard to the case and
the reason Mr. Smith agreed to a continuance, when it was brought
before the Board several months ago as a rezoning request by AT&T.
She stated that Mr. Smith was informed by staff that he would have
to refile his application and pay all new fees, which he did.

Ms. Bonifay stated that the County had started work on the
Tower Ordinance; therefore, Mr. Smith was asked to wait until it
was completed, which they predicted to be in March of this year.
She stated that she heard it may not come before the Board until
August; however, workshops will have to be held and it will have to
go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board, for
public hearings, so she feels it will not be ready until the end of
the year. She stated that, although the County was informed that
AT&T withdrew their request because of their satellite technology,
that was not the case, they withdrew it because they found another
site in Eustis where they did not encounter a problem.

Ms. Bonifay stated that the County enacted a moratorium on
towers; however, Mr. Minkoff has since changed his legal position
and is no longer relying on the moratorium, because it is felt it
was enacted without sufficient notice. She stated that there is
case law, for both cities and counties, that state moratoriums that
effect building permits must be handled with the same due process
requirements as rezoning hearings. She stated that that was not
done and Mr. Smith is now relying on pending ordinance doctrine.
She stated that equitable estoppel can be applied to a local
government entity, in spite of its claim that it is filing a
pending ordinance. She stated that, if an applicant can prove
reliance, a change of position, expenditures, and that it would be
unjust or inapplicable not to allow him/her to go forward, then
equitable estoppel would prevail and, in essence, would trump the
pending ordinance doctrine. She stated that, for those reasons,
she was requesting that the case be heard this date.

Commr. Cadwell questioned whether Mr. Minkoff was comfortable
with the advice that he had given the Board, with regard to
postponing Tabs 11 and 12, the two cases involving towers.

Mr. Minkoff stated that he was.

Commr. Gerber stated that she would rather hear the case this
date, noting that, if the Board postponed it and it went before a
Special Master, they could end up with something they had no
control over.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board decided it would not hear
any cases involving towers, until a Tower Ordinance is in place.

Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that there were
another seven tower cases pending, therefore, felt the best way to
handle the matter would be to postpone them all, or to hear them
all.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing the Mission
Homeowners Association, appeared before the Board stating that
said Association has been involved in this case, from the
beginning, and would like to refute the comment that was made that
this request was for a replacement tower. She stated that they do
not feel it is for a replacement tower and are in favor of a
postponement.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and
carried, by a 3-1 vote, the Board postponed Tab 12, Triangle
Industrial Park - Gene Smith, Rezoning Case No. CUP97/6/4-3,
Tracking No. 45-97-CUP, until September 23, 1997, in order to allow
staff to draft and present to the Board a Tower Ordinance.

Commr. Gerber voted "No".

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. CUP97/6/3-2 - CUP IN A - PINNACLE TOWERS, INC.

LEE BARNARD

Mr. Lee Barnard, Pinnacle Towers, Inc., Applicant, appeared
before the Board stating that this request is for a replacement
tower. He stated that he had inquired last November about
replacing the tower and was told that the County would be redoing
the Code. He stated that it is now eight months later and the
County still does not have the Tower Ordinance in place and he did
not feel that there would be one in front of the Board before the
end of the year. He stated that the tower in question is one that
has been in place for a number of years and is in the middle of
planted pine trees. He stated that the tower's purpose is for co-location. He stated that he recently had a $12,000.00 piece of
radio equipment stolen from the building at the bottom of the
tower, thus, was requesting to replace the tower in question with
an identical tower. He stated that he needed to construct a bullet
proof building at the site, because the building that is presently
in place has been shot at several times. He stated that the
workshops that the County is having, with regard to communication
towers, is promoting colocation - to use existing towers. He
stated that that is what he is doing, using an existing tower. He
stated that it was not built to hold four major carriers and
sixteen radio companies. He stated that he is replacing it with
the same height, location, and type of construction. He stated
that the only thing he will be changing is that he is going to pave
the road, put in a nice building, landscape it, and install a fence
around it with a security system.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which
time Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board does not know what the
new ordinance is going to look like, or how it is going to address
existing sites, therefore, feels this case should be postponed
until the Ordinance is approved.

Mr. Barnard stated that he did not have a problem with paying
an additional fee, if he has to separate out, noting that his main
concern is getting a building constructed at the site and securing
his equipment.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the Board
could approve the building this date, without approving the tower.

A motion was made by Commr. Cadwell and seconded by Commr.
Gerber to postpone Petition No. CUP97/6/3-2, Pinnacle Towers, Inc.,
Lee Barnard, Tracking No. 44-97-CUP, until September 23, 1997, in
order to allow staff to draft and present to the Board a Tower
Ordinance.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she felt, if Mr.
Barnard did not want to move forward with changing the tower, he
should be refunded his $1,000.00.

Mr. Barnard interjected that he would continue with the
process for the tower, but would pull the permit for the building.

Mr. Minkoff stated that the best way to handle the matter
would be to approve a CUP this date for the building only and
postpone the balance of the request until September 23, 1997. He
stated that the approval would be for a CUP, for use with an
existing, non-conforming tower, and have the request for the tower
to be postponed until September 23,1997.

Commr. Cadwell amended his motion, to hear that portion of the
rezoning request that would address the storage building only.

Commr. Gerber amended her second to the motion.

It was noted that the portion of this request that pertains to
the tower would be continued until September 23, 1997 and that the
Board would grant a limited CUP, for the building, for the existing
tower.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was
carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

It was noted that the portion of the request regarding the
storage building would be heard later this date.

PETITION NO. PH11-97-3 - CORRECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION

ALBERT KREIBICK

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth
Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request,
stating that staff was bringing the request before the Board to
correct a clerical error in what was recorded for this case,
following a public hearing that was held two months ago. She
stated that the day of the public hearing staff pulled the large
portion of property that was being reapportioned, which was zoned
RP; however, when the Ordinance was recorded, the entire legal was
recorded with it. She stated that the first page of the Ordinance
read 4.8 acres; however, the legal that is attached to the
Ordinance did not less out that section of the property. She
stated that, administratively, staff cannot amend an ordinance,
without it being resubmitted to the Board. She stated that the
case had been readvertised, the property had been reposted, and
adjacent property owners were renotified. She stated that staff
was requesting, this date, permission to correct the Ordinance - to
correct the legal description that was recorded.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing the applicant,
appeared before the Board stating that the applicant was in favor
of correcting the legal description, to reflect the actual property
involved.

Ms. Glenda Mahaney, an adjacent property owner, appeared
before the Board and questioned whether the Board had received a
letter and map that she had sent them, indicating that the back
portion of the property in question was not RP, according to the
previous zoning records. She stated that a portion of the property
was MP all the way to Lake Saunders and that she felt it should
have been pointed out that the map that was referred to before was
erroneous and she feels misled the Board into thinking that the
back portion of the property was RP, when it was not. She stated
that she felt the case should be postponed and that an
investigation should be held, with regard to the matter.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that, with the
corrected legal description, the rezoning only affects the front
portion of the property. He stated that the rear of the property
would remain the same, noting that the request before the Board
would only apply to the front portion of the property, as shown on
the zoning map contained in the Board's backup material.

The Board questioned whether any action they would take this
date would apply to the back portion of the property.

Mr. Minkoff stated that the Ordinance, with the new legal
description, would only affect the dark shaded portion of the map
contained in the Board's backup material. He stated that what was
recorded with the original ordinance included the legal description
for the entire piece of property; therefore, if the legal
description is not changed, the entire parcel of property would be
rezoned to MP, inadvertently.

Discussion continued regarding the matter, at which time Ms.
Farrell answered questions from the Board regarding same.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the
Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and
carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request
from the Department of Growth Management, to correct the legal
description approved with Ordinance No. 1997-33, to reflect that
the RP (Residential Professional) zoning is lessed out from that
portion zoned MP (Planned Industrial), for an auto salvage yard.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 10:20 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would
recess for five minutes.

REZONING (CONT'D.)

Commr. Hanson requested that Petition No. 24-97-4 be moved up
on the Rezoning Agenda and heard at this time, due to the fact that
the applicant had another commitment and needed to leave.

PETITION NO. 24-97-4 - REVOCATION OF CUP926-5 AND REZONE FROM A TO CFD - RALPH REEDER

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth
Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request,
stating that staff was going to get the applicant out of annual
inspections, out of paying for the CUP, and clarify the uses of the
site, to add the picnic area, the playground, the concession stand,
the caretaker's residence and accessory uses, soccer, football, T-ball, Little League, shuffle board, tennis and basketball. An
aerial (County Exhibit A) of the property in question was
submitted, for the record.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Ralph Reeder, Applicant, appeared before the Board and
answered questions regarding the request.

The Board thanked Mr. Reeder for his efforts in getting the
park established.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the
Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and
carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved
a request for revocation of CUP926-5 and a request to rezone the
property from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District),
for the development of a community recreational facility, to
include basketball, tennis and shuffleboard courts, a Little League
baseball field, soccer, football and T-Ball fields, a picnic area
with pavilions, a playground area, a caretaker's residence, and
accessory amenities.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. 17-97-4 - R-6 TO RM - WILLIAM AND MARCIA ROUTON

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth
Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request,
stating that, at the meeting of April 27, 1997, staff presented the
case to the Board for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to RM
(Mobile Home Residential); however, there was some concern as to
the existing uses in the area, so staff was asked to bring a video
back to the Board showing same. She noted that there were no
changes in the Staff Report.

Commr. Hanson questioned whether staff had conducted a rooftop
count of the area, noting that it was one of the key items
requested.

Ms. Farrell stated that they had not.

At this time the video of the existing uses was shown to the
Board and submitted, for the record, as County Exhibit A.

Commr. Hanson suggested postponing this request until later in
the meeting, to allow staff time to conduct a rooftop count of the
area and come back with the figures, as she had requested.

A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr.
Gerber to postpone this request until later in the meeting, to
allow staff to provide the Board with the requested information.

Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that he would support
the motion, as long as the request will be finalized this date.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was
carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. PH22-97-5 - RM TO AR - GEORGE W. LUNN, JR.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth
Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request,
stating that it involved five acres of land in the Lake Yale area.
She stated that it was a request to rezone from RM (Mobile Home
Residential) to RA (Ranchette), to construct a single family home.
She stated that staff was recommending approval and noted that
there was no opposition to the request on file. An aerial (County
Exhibit A) of the property was submitted, for the record.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

Ms. Connie Lunn, Applicant, appeared before the Board to
answer any questions there might be regarding the request.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the
Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson
and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved
a request for rezoning from RM (Mobile Home Residential) to RA
(Ranchette), for construction of a single family residence.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. CUP97/6/1-4 - CUP IN A - HENRY CHURCH

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth
Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request,
stating that it was a request for a Conditional Use Permit in an
Agricultural zoning. She stated that the applicant has ten acres
in the east Lake County area, on which he has a current nursery and
green houses. She stated that the applicant was requesting a
mobile home, for housing a caretaker on the site. She noted that
the mobile home is currently on the site and that this request
would make it legal. She stated that the request is in compliance
with the County's Land Development Regulations and Comprehensive
Plan. She stated that there were no letters in opposition on file
and noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the
request, by an 8-0 vote. She noted, for the record, a change in
the Ordinance, being on Page 1, under Paragraph 2.A.1., being that
the use of the site shall be limited to that of the single family
home that is currently on the site and a mobile home for the
caretaker, or watchman. An aerial (County Exhibit A) of the
property was submitted, for the record.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board,
the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and
carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved
a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture), for keeping an existing
mobile home on site, for use as a caretaker's living facility, to
assist in the maintenance and operation of a nursery business.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. CUP97/6/2-5 - CUP IN RA - JAMES AND SHIRLEY OREM

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth
Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request,
stating that it involved a 5.8 acre parcel of property in the
Umatilla area. She stated that this case was unique, in that two
relatives needed assistance, both the mother and the father, who
are the applicants. She stated that physician affidavits had been
provided for both individuals. She stated that there is some
concern from the neighbors, as to the use of the property. She
stated that the request is in compliance with the County's Land
Development Regulations and Comprehensive Plan. She stated that
there are three letters and one petition, with 20 signatures, in
opposition to the request on file. She stated that the motion for
approval failed at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, by
a 4-4 vote. She stated that staff was recommending approval and
noted that the use is temporary and for the care of infirm
relatives. She noted that the request would have to be renewed
annually and that physician affidavits would have to be submitted,
annually, as well. An aerial (County Exhibit A) of the property in
question was submitted, for the record.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing the applicants,
appeared before the Board stating that this request was to allow a
family member to temporarily locate a mobile home on the property
in question, to take care of the father, particularly, but also the
mother, who suffers from a heart condition. She stated that said
family member is a paramedic, who is moving to Florida from West
Virginia, because she is the one that the family feels is most
capable of caring for the applicants.

Ms. Shannon Butler, one of the daughters of the applicants,
appeared before the Board, as requested by Ms. Campione, and
answered questions regarding the request.

Ms. Campione submitted, for the record, a petition
(Applicant's Exhibit A), containing eleven names of individuals in
the area who are not opposed to the request, and a petition
(Applicant's Exhibit B), containing three names of individuals who
had previously signed a petition opposing the request, however, no
longer oppose it, after having received more information about it.

At this time, two plats of the Lee Acres Subdivision were
submitted, for the record, one (Applicant's Exhibit C) indicating
the number of mobile homes (11) in the subdivision and the other
(Applicant's Exhibit D) indicating the number of single-family
conventional homes. Eighteen (18) pictures of various homes in the
area and two pictures of the applicants (Applicant's Exhibit E),
were shown and submitted, for the record, as well.

Ms. Butler informed the Board that she had researched the
records of the Clerk's Office and found that Lee Acres, the
subdivision where the property in question is located, does not
have a homeowner's association, or deed restrictions; therefore,
the request would not be in violation of any deed restrictions
recorded on the property.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the
Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and
carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board overturned the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved
a request for a Conditional Use Permit in RA (Ranchette), for the

placement of a mobile home on site, for a temporary living
facility, for the care of infirm relatives.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. 25-97-5 - AMENDMENT TO CUP95/11/4-5 TO DELETE LAND AND REZONE FROM A TO CFD - DAN CAMPBELL/PASTOR DOUG DYKSTRA

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth
Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request,
stating that, in 1995, the County rezoned over 60 acres of
property, for a ratite (ostrich) ranch, in the Silver Lake area,
and this request is to allow 17 of those 60 acres to be set aside
for the construction of a church, school, fellowship hall,
cafeteria, and an adult congregate living facility/retirement
center. She stated that staff had no concerns about the request,
noting that it is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan.
She stated that the applicant submitted a site plan and staff was
recommending approval; however, noted that the request will be
subject to full site plan review and approval. She stated that
there were no letters of opposition or support on file and that
the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by an 8-0
vote. She noted that, on Page 2 of the Ordinance, there were some
comments with regard to Access Management. An aerial (County
Exhibit A) and a site plan (County Exhibit B) of the property in
question were submitted, for the record.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no one present who wished to address the Board,
the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and
carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved
a request for an amendment to CUP95/11/4-5, to delete 17.47 +/-
acres and rezone from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility
District), for the construction of a church, school, fellowship
hall, cafeteria, and an adult congregate living facility/retirement
center.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 11:30 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would
recess for lunch and would reconvene at 12:30 p.m.

PETITION NO. 26-97-5 - REVOCATION OF A+CUP91/5/1-5 AND REZONE

FROM A TO CFD - CITY OF UMATILLA

Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner III, Department of Growth
Management, appeared before the Board stating that this case was
a request from the City of Umatilla for revocation of A
(Agriculture) plus CUP91/5/1-5 and a subsequent rezoning of the
parcel from A (Agriculture)to CFD (Community Facility District),for
the continued use as a composting facility, for yard trash and land
clearing debris, as well as for a future operation of the site as
a wastewater reclamation facility. He stated that the parcel is
approximately 40 acres in size, is located east of the City of
Umatilla, off Twin Ponds Road, and that the future land use
category is Suburban. He stated that the parcel is surrounded by
rural residential type uses. He stated that staff was recommending
approval of the request. He stated that staff looked at the
Comprehensive Plan policies, regarding the provision of utilities,
and reviewed the Land Development Regulations, placing some
conditions within the Ordinance, as well as within the Staff
Report, with regard to buffering, overspray, and the actual
operation of the sprayfield, when it is finally designed.

Mr. Richardson stated that, at such time as the applicant
wants to initiate operation of the sprayfield, they will be
required to go through a full site plan process, as well as full
review, for the actual operation of the sprayfield facility. He
stated that, within the Staff Report, there are various conditions,
some that pertain to the composting facility and some that pertain
to the actual sprayfield facility, especially with regard to the
provision of a 200 foot wooded buffer surrounding all operations on
the site. He stated that the applicant will be required to provide
all Federal and State permits, prior to final site plan approval.
He stated that, although the parcel is 40 acres in size, only 20
acres will be utilized for the sprayfield and composting facility.
He then addressed the pros and cons of the request, contained in
the Staff Report. He stated that the County received 59 letters of
opposition and noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission denied
the request, by a 5-1 vote. An aerial (County Exhibit A) of the
property in question was submitted, for the record.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Michael Hatfield, Attorney, representing the City of
Umatilla, appeared before the Board and questioned Mr. Richardson
about various aspects of the case, being the buffer area and the
distance from it to nearby residences; whether the CFD submittal by
the City of Umatilla complies with the Lake County Comprehensive
Plan; whether it complies with the Lake County Land Development
Regulations; whether the request is consistent with the existing
and proposed uses in the area in question; whether it complies with
concurrency requirements and the various Comprehensive Plan
policies alluded to by Mr. Richardson, as well as with the East
Central Florida Regional Planning Council, and whether it would be
in compliance, or even advance, the State of Florida plan; whether
there would be a negative impact on the environment; whether it
would adversely effect any property values; whether it provides for
the orderly and logical development of the area in question;
whether the conditions outlined in the draft ordinance are adequate
to comply with staff's concerns related to the buffer and the
impact of the use on the surrounding area; what his title entails;
whether he was familiar with the spirit and intent of Rule 9J-5, of
the Florida Administrative Code; and whether this application meets
the spirit of said Code, for long-range future growth plans.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson,
informed the Board that she was representing some individuals in
opposition to the request and questioned whether she would be
allowed to cross-examine Mr. Richardson.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that Ms.
Bonifay had filed a Notice of Appearance, therefore, would be
entitled to participate in the public hearing and cross-examine the
witnesses and that he felt it would be best to do so, while the
witnesses were at the podium, rather than request them to reappear
before the Board.

Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, representing Mr. and Mrs. James Makin
and Mr. and Mrs. Robert Martin, residents who are in close
proximity to the facility in question, appeared before the Board
and cross-examined Mr. Richardson extensively regarding the case.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 1:10 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would
recess for five minutes.

PETITION NO. 26-97-5 - REVOCATION OF A+CUP91/5/1-5 AND REZONE FROM A TO CFD - CITY OF UMATILLA (CONT'D.)

Mr. Hatfield, Attorney, representing the applicant, reappeared
before the Board and questioned Mr. Richardson further, in rebuttal
to Ms. Bonifay's questioning. He then distributed to the Board
a white binder, containing eleven (11) exhibits, which he noted he
would submit, individually, for the record. At this time, he
submitted, for the record, the County's Staff Report, as
Applicant's Exhibit 1.

Mr. David Hanna, City Administrator, City of Umatilla,
appeared before the Board, representing the applicant, as requested
by Mr. Hatfield, stating that he had been directed by the Umatilla
City Council to submit an application to the County, to have the
property in question rezoned to CFD, so the City could continue its
future long-range planning efforts, to comply with their
Comprehensive Plan. He stated that he has a responsibility to the
residents of the City, for future growth management, as well as to
the people in the Lake County area, the surrounding joint planning
area, and the utility service district and they feel the site in
question is the best site for that use. He noted that he would be
addressing alternative sites, as well.

Mr. Greg Beliveau, The Land Planning Group, appeared before
the Board, representing the applicant, as requested by Mr.
Hatfield, and answered questions regarding his professional
credentials; how The Land Planning Group is involved in this case;
his education and training; and the fact that he assisted the City
of Umatilla, in compiling various documents, for presentation as
evidence this date.

Mr. Hatfield informed the Board that he had asked Mr. Beliveau
to assemble Chapter 163, Part II, of the FloridaStatutes, and Rule
9J-5, of the Florida Administrative Code, into a composite exhibit,
consisting of 21 pages, including the blue cover sheet, which he
submitted, for the record, as Applicant's Exhibit 2 (Chapter 163,
Part II, FloridaStatutes, and Rule Chapter 9J-5, Florida
Administrative Code). He then questioned Mr. Beliveau about the
fact that he had included in his report what he felt to be the
perfect parts of the State Comprehensive Plan, which compliments
this application, and the fact that same was listed under Composite
Exhibit 3 (State Comprehensive Plan), consisting of four pages,
including the blue cover sheet, which he submitted, for the record,
as Applicant's Exhibit 3.

Mr. Hatfield questioned Mr. Beliveau further, with regard to
the State plan, and submitted, for the record, Composite Exhibit 4
(East Central Florida Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan),
consisting of 22 pages, including the blue cover sheet; and
Composite Exhibit 5 (Lake County Comprehensive Plan, Adopted July
9, 1991), consisting of seven pages, including the blue cover
sheet, as well as a Supplement to Exhibit 5 (highlighting various
Policies and Objectives in the Economic Element, pertaining to this
request), consisting of nine pages, including the yellow cover
sheet.

Mr. Hatfield clarified with Mr. Beliveau the fact that the
City of Umatilla had a Comprehensive Plan adopted and approved by
the Department of Community Affairs and the fact that it had
pertinent policies and goals and objectives, which deal with the
providing of utilities concurrency compliance and having them in
conjunction with and in response to growth. At this time, Mr.
Hatfield submitted, for the record, Composite Exhibit 6 (City of
Umatilla Comprehensive Plan, Adopted January 21, 1992), consisting
of 28 pages, including the blue cover sheet, noting that Mr.
Beliveau had prepared same, as pertinent portions of the City of
Umatilla plan. He then clarified with Mr. Beliveau the fact that
the City of Umatilla's application is supported by and consistent
with Chapter 163, Part II, of the FloridaStatutes; Rule 9J-5, of
the Florida Administrative Code; the State Comprehensive Plan; the
East Central Florida Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan; the Lake
County Comprehensive Plan; and the City of Umatilla's Comprehensive
Plan and that it meets 17 years of good planning, for future
growth, by the City of Umatilla.

Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, representing two property owners in the
area in question, reappeared before the Board and cross-examined
Mr. Beliveau about the various documents that he had prepared, that
were submitted, for the record. She clarified the fact that the
Lake County Comprehensive Plan is not to promote intergovernmental
cooperation, but public/private partnerships, which really speaks
to contractual relationships, as to the provision of services for
utilities, and the fact that there is no contractual relationship
between Lake County and the City of Umatilla, at the present time.

Mr. Beliveau stated that there is an implied contractual
relationship between Lake County and the City of Umatilla, noting
that the City of Umatilla has on file a utility service area that
is recognized by the Lake County staff and, whenever an applicant
applies for a use within that utility service area, the City of
Umatilla is notified and asked to comment.

Ms. Bonifay questioned whether there was a contractual
arrangement, as two independent parties at an arms length
transaction, as there was in the case of Greater Groves Utilities,
to enter into a contract, for the provision of utility services to
county residents, and was informed that there was not.

Mr. Timothy Green, ASLA/Vice President, The Land Planning
Group, appeared before the Board, representing the applicant, as
requested by Mr. Hatfield, and answered questions regarding the
preparation of various exhibits that he felt were pertinent to this
application. At this time, Mr. Hatfield submitted, for the record,
Composite Exhibit 7 (Lake County Land Development Regulations),
consisting of fifteen pages, including the blue cover sheet, which
contain the exhibits alluded to earlier, from the Lake County Land
Development Regulations.

Mr. Hatfield then questioned Mr. Green about Composite Exhibit
8 (Site Selection Data), consisting of fifteen pages, including the
blue cover sheet, which he noted he had helped prepare, and
submitted same, for the record. He noted that it contained what
Mr. Green believed to be the site selection data that would support
the project in question.

Mr. Will Davis, Director, GIS Services, The Land Planning
Group, appeared before the Board, representing the applicant, as
requested by Mr. Hatfield, and answered questions regarding his
training in the field of engineering and GIS services; the Site
Selection Data exhibit and what had taken place to lead him to his
conclusions regarding same. He briefly discussed the steps that
were taken, in compiling the Site Selection Data contained in
Composite Exhibit 8, at which time he reviewed the various charts
contained within said exhibit and answered questions from Mr.
Hatfield and the Board regarding same.

Ms. Bonifay reappeared before the Board and cross-examined Mr.
Davis about the proposed lift station and various charts that he
had reviewed, during his presentation.

Mr. Nicholas Andreyev, President/Owner, Andreyev Engineering,
appeared before the Board, representing the applicant, as requested
by Mr. Hatfield, and answered questions regarding his education,
experience, and expertise as a hydrogeologist, with regard to this
project. He was questioned as to what he felt the impact would be,
after examining the various site criteria and the Site Selection
Data prepared by The Land Planning Group, from the placement of a
wastewater treatment facility plant on the site in question.

Ms. Bonifay reappeared before the Board and cross-examined Mr.
Andreyev about his analysis of the site in question and the fact
that it was limited only to that site, as well as the fact that he
had not conducted an analysis on any of the alternative sites that
the City of Umatilla had indicated had suitable characteristics and
were under only one ownership.

Mr. Hatfield reappeared before the Board and questioned Mr.
Andreyev further, in rebuttal to Ms. Bonifay's questioning about
adverse impacts of groundwater and the fact that, in his opinion as
a hydrogeologist and engineer, there would be no potential for well
contamination from the proposed project.

Mr. Hanna, City Administrator, City of Umatilla, reappeared
before the Board, as requested by Mr. Hatfield, and was questioned
about his employment and expertise, as it relates to public works;
why the City of Umatilla had acquired the 40 acre tract of land;
and whether he had examined the site and determined that it was
suitable for a wastewater treatment facility. He clarified the
fact that, in searching the records of the City of Umatilla, it was
found that a Warranty Deed was procured for the property on March
3, 1980. He was further questioned, regarding various documents
contained in Applicant's Composite Exhibit 9 (City of Umatilla
Property), consisting of 12 pages, including the blue cover sheet,
two of which were Figures 15 and 15A, showing designated land uses
in the area of the proposed site, as well as a copy of the
Conditional Use Permit (CUP91/5/1-5), under which the City
presently operates, which was submitted, for the record.

Mr. Hatfield questioned Mr. Hanna regarding the Golden Gem
industrial waste sprayfield and its capacity per day (750,000
gallons), in comparison to the capacity (100,000 gallons per day
for Phase I and 200,000 gallons per day for Phase II) for the
startup of the proposed facility and the type of water (Class I
reliability, which will be suitable for reuse in land application)
that will be coming out of the plant, once it is treated.

It was noted that the existing facility's capacity per day is
300,000 gallons and that the load that is being supplied to it will
be reduced by approximately 50%, which will be delivered to the new
facility.

Mr. Hatfield questioned Mr. Hanna about some aerial
photographs (4) and a video that he had taken of the site in
question, which was shown to the Board and then submitted, for the
record, as a Supplement to Applicant's Composite Exhibit 9. He
then clarified with Mr. Hanna the fact that, based on his
experience with water treatment and as the City Administrator and
former Public Works Director for the City of Umatilla, the site
plan that has been selected by the City, which it already owns, is
the best site, of all the possibilities, for the construction of
the facility in question; that it would relieve the demands on the
existing plant; provide for future growth and urbanization of the
eastern side of the City of Umatilla; is within the service area
that has been designated by various comprehensive plans - county
and city; is within the joint planning area of the City of
Umatilla, which provides for city expansion; and, in his opinion,
is needed now, prior to the construction of additional homes in the
area, so that the City can meet future growth demands, and is
necessary to advance those demands.

Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, reappeared before the Board and
questioned Mr. Hanna about the City of Umatilla's long-term plan;
when it first purchased the property in question; whether there had
been a demand, or need, up to this point in time, for use of the
property as a wastewater treatment plant, or spray effluent;
whether, sometime after 1979, there was a proposal, either before
the City, or the County, to utilize the site in that way; what
happened to the proposal (denied by the Board of County
Commissioners); what the capacity of the plant is; whether there is
anything in the Ordinance that restricts the City to the 200,000
gallons per day capacity; whether there could be additional spray
effluent beyond the site in question and, if so, what would be done
with said disposal and whether it is part of the proposal that is
before the Board this date; whether it is a condition of the
approval of the application; and how long he projects the life of
the plant to be, at 200,000 gallons per day (till the year 2005).
She clarified the fact that the City would be freeing up capacity
in the present plant and transferring it to the site in question;
how large a site Golden Gem has (twice the size of the City of
Umatilla site); how they are disposing of their effluent; and how
many other institutional uses there would be, such as wastewater
treatment plants, spray effluent, and closed landfills.

At 3:10 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would
recess for fifteen minutes.

PETITION NO. 26-97-5 - REVOCATION OF A+CUP91/5/1-5 AND REZONE FROM A TO CFD - CITY OF UMATILLA (CONT'D.)

Mr. Roland Lewis, Wicks Consulting Services, Inc., appeared
before the Board, representing the applicant, as requested by Mr.
Hatfield, and was questioned as to where he was employed; his
training; whether he had assisted in the Preliminary Engineering
Report, as prepared by Wicks Consulting Services, Inc.; how the
report was prepared; of the various alternatives that were given,
which approach seemed to be the best, to satisfy the future growth
needs of the City of Umatilla; and whether it was determined that
the best long-range growth plan would be to relieve some of the
capacity and create some capacity in the old plant, by opening a
new plant east of Umatilla. He clarified the fact that the future
growth on the west side of the City is restricted, so the City is
trying to open up some capacity and create a plant that will take
care of future growth, in what has been identified as a growth
area, east of the City. He was questioned as to whether he had
consulted with the Public Works staff and the City Administrator,
for the City of Umatilla, relative to what would be the best
location to divide the City into the two plant areas; and clarified
that his firm had done a preliminary engineering report, once the
decision was made, through the site selection process.

At this time, Mr. Hatfield submitted, for the record,
Applicant's Composite Exhibit 10 (Preliminary Engineering Report),
consisting of 41 pages, including the blue cover sheet.

Mr. Lewis discussed the data contained in the Preliminary
Engineering Report, at which time he reviewed various charts
contained within the report, and answered questions from Mr.
Hatfield and the Board regarding same.

Ms. Bonifay reappeared before the Board and cross-examined Mr.
Lewis about the report, clarifying the fact that, in dividing the
City of Umatilla into east and west and, based on elevations and
criteria that his firm considered, as engineers, came up with the
location for the lift station; that his firm had a utility master
plan for the City, which they used; that one of the criteria for
locating the lift station in the middle of the City was that there
be equal pumping capacity; clarified why his firm did not go to the
same distance, in looking at potential sites for the new wastewater
treatment plant; and clarified whether or not the firm limited
their search to city owned properties, within a certain radius,
east of where the lift station was going to be.

Mr. Green, ASLA/Vice President, The Land Planning Group,
reappeared before the Board, representing the applicant, as
requested by Mr. Hatfield, and was questioned as to whether he had
done a study, in his capacity as a land planner for the City of
Umatilla, related to the effects of this project on the adjacent
lands; whether he had gone through the County records, to obtain
data, for inclusion in a report that he had done, with regard to
said study, and utilizing said information, compiled said report.

At this time, Mr. Hatfield submitted, for the record,
Composite Exhibit 11 (Effects on Adjacent Land), consisting of 48
pages, including the blue cover sheet, and questioned Mr. Green
further regarding said report. Figure 15A, a map indicating
adjacent land uses, contained in Composite Exhibit 9, was referred
to and discussed, at which time Mr. Green stated that the Staff
Report indicated that the County had received 59 letters in
opposition to the request, however, noted that his firm received
122 letters, of which only eight came from individuals living in
Section 17, the area in question. He gave a breakdown of the
property locations of the remaining letters.

Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, reappeared before the Board and
questioned Mr. Green regarding his credentials; whether he was an
appraiser; whether he had ever taken an appraisal course, or was
certified to do appraisals; how he compiled the information he
alluded to earlier, regarding the property owners in opposition to
this request; what his premise was, in stating that the facility in
question could not have an adverse effect, because properties built
after Golden Gem was erected have a higher average value than those
built prior to that; whether he had located any of the properties
and their proximity to Golden Gem; whether he had taken into
consideration any improvements that were made to the Golden Gem
sprayfield, during this period of time; clarified what she felt was
no qualitative analysis on what part of the sprayfield the property
owners in opposition to the request live near, or what the
conditions were; whether he had any idea how those values might
rank in actual market values this date - what the properties are
listed for on the tax rolls, compared to what they might actually
sell for today; and clarified that there was no analysis of any
other market factors, in doing his report, that he just used tax
numbers off the tax rolls.

Mr. James Makin, a resident of the area in question, who owns
five acres adjacent to the property in question, appeared before
the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he purchased
his property before the 40 acre parcel in question was sold to the
City of Umatilla and had spent 10 years building a home that is
worth over $200,000. He stated that, if the facility is approved,
he will be ruined, as far as resale value of his home is concerned.
He stated that 17 years ago the request was turned down by the
Board, because they felt it would be a negative impact to the area.
He stated that, since that time, several upscale homes have been
built in the area and the area is growing. He stated that the
landfill that was once located in the area is now closed and the
area is looking good. He stated that the residents should not be
sandwiched between two sprayfields. He discussed the video that
was taken of the property in question and the fact that it did not
show all the homes that are located around the property, noting
that there are homes on five acre tracts, ten acre tracts, and
small lots. He then discussed the odor that will be emitted from
the facility.

Ms. Nadine Foley, a resident of the area in question, appeared
before the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she
felt the use would be incompatible with the present land use. She
referred to Objective 1-5, of the Future Land Use Element, which
she read into the record, noting that the request is not in
compliance with same. She stated that, since it is not likely that
the facility will ever serve the community where it will be
located, it is very unlikely that it will ever serve the very
people who are going to be impacted by it. She then referred to
Objective 1-8, of the Future Land Use Element, which she read into
the record. She stated that the residents of the area would like
to continue to improve and develop their area of the County,
according to the present zoning and land uses, therefore, requested
the Board to deny the request.

Ms. Yvonne Rice, a resident of the area in question, appeared
before the Board, in opposition to the request, and addressed the
issue of property values, noting that she had spoken to several
realtors in Lake County and was informed that, in their opinion, a
facility such as the one in question would adversely effect
property values in the area adjacent to the facility, as well as
within one-quarter mile of the facility.

Mr. Dave Denison, a resident of the area in question, appeared
before the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he
felt the Board had a responsibility to the residents in the area of
the proposed facility. He stated that he was planning to build a
home on two acres that he owns; however, noted that, if the Board
approved the request, he would sell his property and move. He
stated that he felt the residents should have been dealt with
fairly and told exactly what was happening in the area, noting
that, if they had been, they may have been able to work out a lot
of the problems. He stated that they do not want the facility in
their backyard and will not accept it.

Mr. Richard Kahle, a resident of the area in question,
appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, stating
that he was representing himself and five of his neighbors, who
could not be present. He stated that the neighborhood was going
residential, not agricultural, so there will be less people who
will have a need for the wastewater from the facility.

Ms. Bertha Carroll, Chairman, Oak Grove Cemetery Association,
and a resident of the area in question, appeared before the Board,
in opposition to the request, stating that a group of the residents
fought this request 17 years ago. She discussed problems that the
residents have had with property in the area of the proposed
facility and noted that they do not want the facility in their
area.

Ms. Bernadine Makin, a resident of the area in question,
appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, and
questioned whether she had understood correctly that the Planning
and Zoning Commission voted against the request and was informed
that they had denied it, by a 5-1 vote.

Ms. Nicole Szymanski, a resident of the area in question,
appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, stating
that she and her husband own a hydroponic (recirculation of water)
nursery in the area in question and have approximately $200,000
invested in it, because they believe in saving the environment and
the land. She stated that they grow herbs, with basil being the
main crop, which goes to the consumer, and, if the facility is
approved and it poisons their wells, she will be out of business.
She stated that she was also concerned that her basil could be
contaminated, without her knowing it, and she would be shipping
contaminated food all over the country. She requested the Board to
deny the request.

Ms. Vi Heyner, a resident of the area in question, appeared
before the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she
was concerned about the water in the area, noting that she bought
her home 13 years ago, ignorant of Golden Gem's sprayfield,
however, has since become educated about the matter. She stated
that the proposed sprayfield will literally be in her back yard and
requested the Board to deny the request.

Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, reappeared before the Board stating
that they had a lot of data and information before them and
substantial evidence from those in opposition to the request. She
stated that, as testified to by Mr. Beliveau, one of the issues of
Rule 9J-5 is a determination of compatibility; however, there is no
criteria for that, it is a determination that the Board will have
to make, as to whether or not the use is compatible with the
residential character of the neighborhood. She stated that the
residents in the area get all the burden, but none of the benefits.
She stated that the City of Umatilla does not have to make a
decision about locating the facility within the City boundaries -
they left that decision to the Board, so the impact and effect is
going to be on county residents, and the benefit and burden is
going to be on the yet to come city residents. She stated that the
bottom line is that it is a good idea, good project, but wrong
location. She requested the Board to deny the request.

Mr. Hatfield reappeared before the Board, in rebuttal to Ms.
Bonifay's comments, stating that the arguments of the residents
that testified, in opposition to the request, are what are called
NIMBY (not in my back yard) arguments, which he noted is going to
occur anywhere that the City attempts to meet the requirements of
Rule 9J-5 and the various statutes. He stated that, according to
the engineering reports and the experts, this site is perfectly
located and suitable, in every way - topographically,
geographically, and hydrologically, which is not by accident,
noting that the reason it is perfect is because a group of people
got together in 1979 and selected the property, because of its
physical attributes and because of the exposure that the City would
get and the growth that would go eastward. He stated that it is a
magnificent plan and needs to be brought to fruition, noting that
the acquisition of the site is part of a long-range plan.

Mr. Hatfield stated that it was suggested that the City seek
a site to the west of the City, however, noted that it is unsuited
hydrologically for an expansion of the plant. He stated that there
is not a site in the boundaries of the City of Umatilla large
enough to accommodate the plant, or the proposed expansion of the
plant, to meet the needs that the City needs to meet, through the
year 2005, and on to the year 2015. He stated that the growth area
is east of the City and the City has gone to that growth area,
before they have the growth, and has constructed a plant, so that,
when the growth comes to the area, they will have the plant
capacity there, in a perfectly suited location, with a negative
slope, with the proper soil, and with the proper hydrological data.
He stated that there is no place to put the plant, in an urban
area, in the City of Umatilla. He stated that there are tremendous
agricultural uses, as well as other uses that would take the
reclaimed and reusable water and treat it to the standards that are
required by the State and the County, in its comprehensive plan,
which is part of the long-range planning. He stated that there is
no expert opinion, no document, no report, or anything that would
rise to substantial and competent evidence that would support a
denial of this request. He requested the Board to approve the
request.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the
Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Commr. Hanson stated that she did not feel the growth that was
going to occur in the area in question was going to be the kind
that would require a sewer system, at least not for the next 30-40
years, because it is being developed in five acre tracts and is in
the Suburban land use category. She stated that there is a need to
reuse the water, whether it is on a golf course or orange grove,
but feels it needs to be handled in a different manner than it is
presently being handled.

Commr. Gerber stated that she felt the facility would be a
good one, however, did not feel it would provide a regional
service. She stated that she did not see any evidence that the
City looked internally and would like them to do so. She stated
that she would not be supporting the request.

Commr. Good stated that he did not see substantial evidence
that the growth in the area in question was going to occur at a
density that would require the kind of sprayfield being proposed
and that he felt there may be other, more agricultural, locations
to place the facility. He stated that he was not sure the request
was consistent with the Future Land Use Map, or the designation for
the area, and that he did not feel it was a compatible land use.
He stated that he would not be supporting the request.

Commr. Cadwell stated that this case was a tough one for him,
noting that he has a connection to the City of Umatilla, however,
has neighbors and friends that will be affected by it. He stated
that he felt the site in question was a good one for the facility,
because a buffer is there and the soils are good. He stated that
there is no place for the facility within the City, so, at some
point, the County is going to have to assist the City in finding a
site.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and
carried, by a 3-1 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the
Planning and Zoning Commission and denied a request for revocation
of A+CUP91/5/1-5 and to rezone from A (Agriculture) to CFD
(Community Facility District), for the continued use of a storage
and yard trash/land clearing debris composting operation and the
future use of a water reclamation facility.

Commr. Cadwell voted "No".

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. 17-97-4 - R-6 TO RM - WILLIAM AND MARCIA ROUTON

(CONT'D.)

It was noted that this case was continued from earlier in the
meeting, to allow staff to conduct a rooftop count in the Sorrento
area, as requested.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth
Management, appeared before the Board stating that staff conducted
a rooftop count of the area in question, as requested, during the
Board's lunch break, and that the area contains 49.6% conventional
homes and 50.4% mobile homes.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and
carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved
a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to R-7 (Mixed
Residential), for the placement of a mobile home.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. PH23-97-2 - C-1 TO C-2 - MAYE WELLS AND

JOHN M. DODGEN

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth
Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request,
stating that staff has had an ongoing dialogue with the applicant,
since day one, as to the proposed uses, what they had to have, what
they could settle for, etc. She stated that the evening prior to
this meeting staff received a FAX (County Exhibit A) from the
applicant, which she submitted, for the record. She stated that
staff was recommending denial, based on the initial request;
however, the initial request has changed. She stated that the
applicant has 2.6 acres, within a neighborhood commercial node, on
Hwy. 27 and SR 561. She stated that the site is a fairly small
one, therefore, will have some development limitations. She stated
that the initial request was for manufacturing; however, there is
no zoning to cover that use. She stated that staff was
recommending approval for CP (Planned Commercial), to allow an
office and sales on the parcel, based on the most recent
conversation with the applicant. She stated that the applicant
would need CP, because vehicular sales is not a permitted use in

C-1. She stated that the only change that would have to be made to
the backup for the Ordinance would be to strike through any
reference made to the light industrial, on Page 2 of the Ordinance,
and the applicant would be limited to 5,000 square feet, which is
the neighborhood cap. She noted that the zoning will not give the
applicant site approval; therefore, he will have to have an
engineer work out the details. A plat (County Exhibit B) of the
property in question was submitted, for the record.

Commr. Hanson noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission
approved the request to C-2 (Community Commercial), however, staff
was recommending that it be changed to CP (Planned Commercial).

Ms. Farrell stated that staff's recommendation has always been
CP, because vehicular sales are not permitted in C-1 or C-2. It was noted that CP would give the County more control over
the use of the land, however, would still allow the use that the
applicant is seeking.

Ms. Farrell noted that the request meets the commercial
locational criteria and that staff was recommending approval.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Harry Truesdale, Truesdale Real Estate, appeared before
the Board, representing the applicant, stating that the property in
question is presently being used for a dump site. He stated that
the applicant will be spending thousands of dollars putting in a
business operation, to display top-of-the-line RVs along the
highway frontage. He stated that the area in question is excellent
for this type of sales.

Commr. Good stated that he felt the request would be a
reasonable use for the property, being that it is a commercial
area, and that he felt CP would be the right zoning. He stated
that he concurred with staff's recommendation; however, noted that
he was concerned about the alignment of the entrance and wanted to
make sure that it is part of the County's access management. He
stated that he wanted to make sure that, during the site plan
review, it would be kept in mind.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the
Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and
carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved
a request for rezoning, however, changed the request from C-1
(Neighborhood Commercial) to CP (Planned Commercial), rather than
C-2 (Community Commercial), to build a model light manufacturing
facility, for construction of an office and show room area for
"Born Free Motor Homes".

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth
Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request,
stating that the property in question is an 8 acre site, located at
the intersection of Hwy. 19 and U.S. 27, in the area of the
County's industrial park (Lake County Central Park). She stated
that the property was rezoned in 1994 for commercial uses,
specifically C-1 and C-2, however, is located outside the
commercial node. She stated that, due to the fact that the County
has yet to come forward with a unified commercial site plan, staff
was recommending denial. She reviewed a copy of the Future Land
Use Map (contained in the Board's backup material)and submitted,
for the record a plat (County Exhibit A)of the property in
question.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson,
appeared before the Board stating that she was representing the
owners, the sellers, the broker, the limited partner, and the
purchaser. She stated that she did not know why this case was
before the Board, because the zoning on the property is CP, with

C-1 and C-2 uses, and a CUP is not required, because there is no
provision for a CUP in CP, with C-1 and C-2 uses, for RVs - they
are conditional. She stated that the applicants had to go through
this process when they had the property rezoned in 1994 and nothing
has changed, with regard to the Comprehensive Plan, since then.
She stated that a determination was made by the County, in 1994,
that the property was located within an activity center; therefore,
it was appropriate for the property to be rezoned to CP, with C-1
and C-2 uses. She stated that the issue of the unified site plan
came up, at that time, so she went through her files and found that
meetings were held with Mr. Pete Wahl, the former County Manager;
Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Department of Growth Management;
and Mr. Cole Whitaker, prior to the request being brought before
the Board. She stated that Mr. Knight had prepared a Unified Site
Plan Map (a copy of which she had in her files)and the County was
to initiate the plan.

Ms. Bonifay stated that the zoning was approved and the
following determinations were made: That the unified site plan
should not be a hindrance to the applicant getting a commercial
zoning; that they had to bring a site plan in, at the time that
they had a user; and that the County was to go forward with the
effort. She stated that the applicants feel it would be
prejudicial, at this point in time, to deprive them from using
commercially zoned property that has been found to be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, because the County has not fulfilled
its responsibility and finished the unified site plan. She noted
that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously, in favor
of the request.

Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the applicants would
need to amend their CP, because the current CP does not allow
vehicular sales. He stated that it would be required, under any
circumstances, regardless of the Comprehensive Plan issues.

Commr. Cadwell questioned whether staff's recommendation would
still be for denial, if someone made a motion to change the CP to
allow vehicular sales.

Ms. Farrell stated that the County does not have an approved
unified site plan and that is what staff is basing their request
for denial on.

Mr. Minkoff interjected that it would be a fine line, noting
that, when the CP says C-1 and C-2 uses, vehicular sales is not a
permitted use - it is a conditional use.

Ms. Bonifay urged the Board to amend the CP, to allow
vehicular sales, so that the applicants could move forward with the
RV sales and service operation.

No one was present in opposition to the request.

There being no further individuals who wished to address the
Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr.
Cadwell to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning
Commission and amend the CP, to allow vehicular sales and service.

Under discussion, Commr. Good stated that he would not support
the change in zoning, because it would automatically permit
vehicular sales, without the Board having a review, or a site plan
available.

Commr. Hanson stated that she felt an equity situation
existed, noting that the Board had just approved such a request,
without a site plan.

Commr. Good interjected that the request alluded to by Commr.
Hanson is for property that is located at an intersection that is
designated for RV sales, however, this one is not.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was
carried, by a 3-1 vote.

Commr. Good voted "No".

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

REPORTS

COUNTY ATTORNEY

CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS/GROWTH MANAGEMENT/ZONING

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that
the County granted the Ray Ranch a PUD, for 700+ dwelling units;
however, the case was appealed under the Green Swamp rule and a
Settlement Agreement was entered into, in 1992. He stated that the
Department of Environmental Protection is now preparing to acquire
the property and, because the Settlement Agreement was recorded in
the public records, they treat it as an encumbrance and have
requested that the County agree to rescind and cancel the
agreement, when they purchase the property. He stated that the
Department of Community Affairs has proposed that the agreement has
to close before July 1, 1997. He stated that the Conditional
Rescission of Settlement Agreement before the Board this date would
rescind the Settlement Agreement, only upon the time that the
Department of Environmental Protection bought the Ray Ranch, which
he noted is scheduled to occur June 30, 1997.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and
carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request
from the County Attorney for approval and authorization for the
Chairman to sign the Conditional Rescission of Settlement
Agreement, between the Department of Community Affairs, Ruth A.
Ray, and Lake County - Case No. 91-6598DRI.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER GOOD - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 2

COMMUNITY SERVICES

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and
carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board authorized the
Chairman to send a letter to Fr. David J. Randolph, Juvenile
Justice Council, on behalf of the Board, with regard to the issue
of a juvenile detention center being placed in Lake County and the
Board's opinion regarding same.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER GOOD - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 2

COMMUNITY SERVICES/GRANTS

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and
carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request
from Ms. Alicia Barrett, Our Small Children at Risk Foundation, for
the support of a grant application for the Family Preservation
Grant, from the Department of Children and Families, which provides
prevention and intervention services for children in the Lake and
Sumter County areas.

Commr. Swartz was not present at this meeting.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention
of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.